Locke Vs Hobbes Essay

Jack Zhou
1/5/2014
Jason Fisher
Ap European History
Locke Vs Hobbes During the 18th centuries, the movement that are known as the “Enlightenment” brought many more idea into play in European society. Two of these contributors are Locke and Hobbes. While they are both natural law theorist and social contract theorist, their similarities ends there. Hobbes supports order and monarch, while Locke liberties and republic. On the matters on governments, Locke and Hobbes have opposite thought. Locke believe that all people, no matter how low in social status, have inalienable rights. These right are life, liberty, and the right to own property. While on the other hand, Hobbes believes that people are born with rights, but they must give up that right to receive protection from the government and monarch. This is known as social contract. They even disagree on the reason for government. In his book “Leviathan”, Hobbes stated that the purpose of the government and monarch was to keep law and order. This book is written during the English civil war, which shown how non-centralized government can cause great disorder and frequent war. While Locke believe the role on government in to protect individual liberties and rights mentioned above. So overall we can tell that Hobbes think that absolute monarch is the best kind of government, as it centralize power and improve stability and unity. Locke want any kind of representative government, where people have the right to speak up and defend their rights. At 18th centuries, religion is one of the biggest part of politics and civilization. Hobbes believes in the traditional way, that only one religion should be allow in a nation. By getting everyone to follow the religion of the state, the mandate of heaven works on everyone, and the populace will be united and more tolerant toward the government. Locke, on the other hand, is strongly influenced by Enlightenment ideas and propose reform. He suggested the governments should grant the people the right to choose their own religion. While he still believe that there should be an official religion that is approved by the government, other religion should be tolerated, if not welcomed. They further proven that Hobbes prefer unity and order over liberties, while Locke Liberties over everything else. While Locke and Hobbes both recognize the natural right of people, their opinion of the right of ownership, an obvious part of today’s rights, is different. Hobbes believe that private…

Related Documents: Locke Vs Hobbes Essay

However, we shall not forget that knowledge is power, as well as power is knowledge. Two philosophers in particular, having both similar and different characteristics, both made a huge impact on our thought process on how things should be. Thomas Hobbes with “Leviathan” and Jean Jacques Rousseau with “The Social Contract”, are two works in particular where they happened to lead into both the English Revolution (1685), and the French Revolution (1789). Both being relatively huge with the revolutions…

paper is to provide an analysis on the issue of self-defense by drawing evidence from Aquinas, Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Locke. Through an analysis of what self-defense consists of, from these political theorists, one can more accurately determine when it is applicable. Aquinas argued that man should not kill in self-defense and “it will be lawful in self-defense to resist force in due moderation” (170). Hobbes reasoned that “the fundamental law of nature” is to “seek peace and follow it…by all means…

History
March 19, 2014
Locke or Hobbes: How do you really feel?
Locke believed the ideal form of government was a democracy because it allowed the citizens of the country to have their own rights, it allowed them to make governmental decisions for their own good, and he believed that the purpose of the government is to protect individual rights and liberties. Hobbes believed that a monarch should have absolute power over his or her citizens, which I do not agree with.
Locke believed that “all people…

Lockes and Hobbes were both social contract theorists, and both natural law theorists, but their resemblance ends with that. Hobbes state of nature is more logical because his claim describes humans simply partaking in what their primary and initial, more importantly natural, instinct. Howver, not everyone’s initial instinct is to choose self-preservation over others which is shown through the following points: humans are selfish, security is something everyone needs, for humans self preservation…

A. Thomas Hobbes
1. Hobbes believed that people were naturally selfish, unsociable human beings. Human beings in general were simple minded, with selfish desires, and were most influenced by their desire for power over others. Hobbes believed that man were addicted to having power, and quarrel amongst people is only natural. Men also live by a “social contract” in which they treat others the way they wish to be treated themselves. Yet this social contract is not substantial enough to maintain order…

Compare and contrast Hobbes´ and Locke´s accounts of the state of nature
The state of nature is the idea of a life without laws, without government and without a state. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, two of the most important philosophers of the 17th century, had different conceptions of this state. Even though both philosophers agree on the dangers within a state of nature and the equality that men had in this state, their theories differ. When it comes to the state of war, Hobbes is much more pessimistic…

philosophers were Hobbes and Hume. Both made important contributions to the world of ethics. One of the main important things they differed on is reason. Hobbs felt that reason is way to seek peace but Hume felt the reason is only a slave to passions. In the following paragraphs, you will see how Hobbes and Hume explain their different views on reason the theories of the two philosophers are analyzed in depth, so that we can have a comprehensive understanding.
Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher…

Comparing John Locke against David Hume : Empiricism
John Locke and David Hume, both great empiricist philosophers who radically changed the way people view ideas and how they come about. Although similar in their beliefs, the two have some quite key differences in the way they view empiricism. Locke believed in causality, and used the example of the mental observation of thinking to raise your arm, and then your arm raising, whereas Hume believed that causality is not something that can be known…

Social Order Creation: Hobbes vs. Smith
Hobbes and Smith are at odds about the idea of how power plays into social order creation. Hobbes believes that in the state of nature, man has no power to control others, and because of this, everyone is aggressive towards one another, as no one can trust another. Because of this, social order is necessary to give man incentive towards cooperation and trust, by selling your individual rights to freedom in order to gain social rights of security and safety…

Words 3179 - Pages 13

* Test names and other trademarks are the property of the respective trademark holders. None of the trademark holders are affiliated with this website.